Contra Metaphysical Idealism

[bennyboy]

In that case there is no operational difference between a physical view and you so-called idealistic view. The difference, however, is that yours adds a layer of explanation that is unnecessary and explains nothing.

You have that exactly backward. We already know ideas are real-- we don't even need evidence for that, since it's how we exist. Idealism allows for all of science to still work, while conveniently eliminating the hard problem of consciousness. Physical monism requires drawing many inferences from lifetime experiences, and arriving at a belief about an objective reality that underlies them. That's a lot more work to arrive at a philosophical position that isn't really needed in order to do science.

Let's say you found yourself in the Matrix. Let's even say you KNEW you were in the Matrix. What would you do? You'd observe, make theories, test them, talk about them with other Matrixians, and form a body of rules which described that which is consistent in the Matrix. In short, science is not dependent on the idea of the objective reality of objects or the universe in which they are placed. The converse is true-- that we like the physical model because it frames our experiences in a way that makes it easier (or even possible) to do science.

The problem is that not all things ARE made more presentable by applying the idea of physical monism to them-- things like cosmogony and qualia, for example. And that's where the assymetry favors idealism: all physical observations are well-represented as ideas. But not all experiences or ideas are well-represented as objects of a science which insists on physical monism.

The evidence that the physical reality is there is that we can independently affect it and get the same results. That indicates that there is reality.

Proof? No, evidence.

Evidence is just another word for "experiences that support my ideas." There's no such thing as non-mental evidence.